Skip to main content
Glama
Krelborn

docker-compose-mcp

by Krelborn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Update Docker Compose Containers

docker_compose_update
Destructive

Update Docker Compose containers by stopping them, pulling updated images, and restarting. Specify the compose file path; runs detached by default.

Instructions

Update Docker Compose containers by stopping them, pulling latest images, and restarting.

This tool executes the standard update workflow:

  1. Stop running containers (docker compose down)

  2. Pull latest images (docker compose pull)

  3. Start containers with new images (docker compose up -d)

Args:

  • compose_file (string): Absolute path to the docker-compose.yml file

  • detached (boolean): Run containers in detached mode (default: true)

Returns: A summary of each step's output, including:

  • Which containers were stopped

  • Which images were pulled/updated

  • Which containers are now running

  • Any errors encountered during the process

Examples:

  • Use when: "Update my chemdraw containers"

  • Use when: "Pull latest images and restart docker compose"

Error Handling:

  • If 'down' fails, continues to 'pull' (containers may not be running)

  • If 'pull' fails, does not proceed to 'up'

  • If 'up' fails, reports error details

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detachedNoRun containers in detached mode (default: true)
compose_fileYesAbsolute path to the docker-compose.yml file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description greatly enhances this by detailing the exact destructive steps (stopping, pulling, restarting), the order of operations, and robust error handling logic (continuing after 'down' failure, stopping after 'pull' failure). It also specifies the return summary contents, adding significant value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (workflow, args, returns, examples, error handling). It is slightly verbose, especially in repeating argument descriptions that are already in the schema, but the front-loaded purpose and numbered steps aid quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-step destructive operation), lack of output schema, and the need for clear error handling, the description is complete. It covers the workflow, arguments, return summary, usage examples, and error behavior, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds minor value by listing the arguments and their defaults/purposes, but doesn't introduce new syntax or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a score of 4 is appropriate as it provides a clear consolidated view without being redundant.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update Docker Compose containers') and details the exact three-step workflow (down, pull, up -d). It distinguishes itself from the sibling docker_compose_command by being a high-level orchestrated update rather than a generic command executor.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete 'Use when' examples for update scenarios, clearly implying this tool is for updating containers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use the sibling docker_compose_command instead, nor does it state any exclusions (e.g., not for initial deployment).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools